(no subject)

[timelets]

If somebody wants to kill a lot of people, would markets supply the weapons? Yeah. Would the markets care what the killer's true intentions are, e.g. mass murder vs self-defense? Nah.

Comments

[timelets]

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

[(Anonymous)]

That is, of course, part of the story. But not the whole story. Where did the butcher get the cow and what made the meat his to sell? Unless property rights are defined, buying and selling could not happen. The butcher could, of course, rob the farmer to get the cow and the customer could kill the butcher and take the meat. But this is not what Prof. Smith talked about in his treatise.

Again, markets need a legal environment to emerge. And such a legal environment would, necessarily, have to take a stand on liability (even if it does so implicitly, by not providing for it at all). GIVEN THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT, we may talk about what markets do or do not do. If it is not there, markets will not exist, and, hence, will not even deliver apples, still less something as complicated as guns.

[timelets]

Right. Given all that and 300 million guns in private hands, is there a new legal environment that enables a new market with new public safety products that have fewer side effects?